Health Freedom Assaulted in Full View: HIPAA and Data Sharing

Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer

Guest: Twila Brase

Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 2/11/26. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.

Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning the following dialogue.

Sam Rohrer:

Hello and welcome to another Stand in the Gap Today program. And today I’m glad to have back with me the president and the co-founder of Citizens Council for Health Freedom. That’s Twila Brase. You recognize her? Well, I know today we’re going to look again into the arena of health and health freedom. That is our focus when we are together. While the area of health related matters, I’m going to say greatly overshadowed in what we’re hearing in the controlled media, which is basically everybody who’s out there that we listen to, frankly. But the narratives right now that are dominating, and I’m going to say distracting, are obviously the looming Middle East war and everything regarding that. Then of course, the entire Epstein affair with the document coverup and all that’s involved in that, which is significant. And it’s just sapping the energy of Washington folks and those who are looking on because there’s just so much involved in that with the necessity of bringing justice to those who are victims and bringing justice to those who are perpetrators and enablers in that circumstance alone, which obviously has not happened with nobody going to jail.

So that’s a big issue. So there’s a lot going on, but my goal today is not to be talking on that, but kind of to cut through and focus on and get an update and a review on selected issues of importance in the area of health freedom and do that with Twila today. A number of things have happened since we were together just about a month ago on this program. But the title I’ve chosen to frame our conversation today is this, health freedom assaulted in full view, HIPAA and data sharing. Now I’m going to say we’re going to talk about HIPAA and data sharing, and that’s going to be in segment two. There’ll be other issues we’ll talk about as well, but I’m just putting that into the title because it’s a big deal and we’ll talk about it. Health freedom assaulted in full view, HIPAA and data sharing.

But with that, Twila, welcome to the program. Always great to have you here and apart our listeners like to listen to you because you generally bring … No, I’m going to say you generally bring good information. You bring always truthful information, so it’s good to have you back.

Twila Brase:

Thanks, Anne. Well, I’m always glad to be here.

Sam Rohrer:

Twila, in the first segment here, before we get into the matters of saying of HIPAA and data sharing, and we’re also going to talk about the US withdrawal from the World Health Organization and what that means, and then some other things. I’d like for you to provide a legislative and policy update. That’s part of what you do as a part of Citizens Council for Health Freedom. It’s an important part, but let’s do it this way. There are some that are likely positive leading perhaps to greater health freedom. And then there may be some things that are taking place that are, I’m going to say, walking in the opposite direction. So let’s start with any that you would identified right now that would be in the concerning nature.

Twila Brase:

Well, maybe I feel … I’ll just stick with one because I think it’s such a big deal and I think nobody understands or can see it or where it’s going to go or has connected the dots, although everybody in the regulatory field knows it, but the fact that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have decided to change original Medicare in a major way. So they have decided to do a pilot project with eight states, sorry, in six states for six years. And those six states are Arizona, New Jersey, Texas, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Washington. And for the senior citizens in those states, they will suddenly find that in original Medicare, they may have to go through prior authorization. They may have to seek permission from a company, not from any doctor, not from their doctor, not from a health plan, from a company that the federal government is installing to oversee denials and acceptances for what treatments doctors have ordered.

So essentially, Medicare Advantage is the health plan version of Medicare. It’s the one where these health plans use prior authorization to deny Medicare approved medically necessary care. And then seniors have to try and get that care and go through an appeals process and all this sort of thing. But in original Medicare, it’s the freedom version of Medicare, but the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is turning original Medicare into Medicare Advantage by starting to bring prior authorization in through this six state project for six years. It’s huge. You know this is exactly what they want to do over the long term, but right now people who are paying more for original Medicare in those states are going to be treated somewhat like Medicare Advantage where people pay less, but they’re also denied more access to

Sam Rohrer:

Care. Sounds like the framework for institutionalization of ration to care, Twila.

Twila Brase:

Yes. And they call this the wiser model.

Sam Rohrer:

Oh, of course.

Twila Brase:

And each one of those words say something, including just waste, right? They want to take out waste and inefficiency, but of course this is going to be a bureaucracy, a corporation that will get paid more for every denial that they approve. That doesn’t even make sense to approve a denial. So for every piece of care that they deny, they will be paid more when they find this unnecessary care to deny.

Sam Rohrer:

Oh, this sounds just like good centralized socialized government. Let’s not go any further on that. Let’s turn to the positive. Anything happening policy wise and all that is positive and helpful to health freedom?

Twila Brase:

Yeah. So we have a new director of public policy and she was looking into this rule, this proposed rule coming out of HHS for how they’re going to pay. And this is very exciting because really a part of it follows our 3C solution for healthcare in this country, which is cash, catastrophic coverage, and charity. That’s where we want to take the entire country. And so within this proposed, this notice about how they’re going to pay, they’ve added, and this is the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, they are proposing to allow non-network plans. So health plans are networks plans, right? Regular insurance doesn’t have networks. So I think what they’re saying here is they want to qualify non-network plans for all healthcare given through the Affordable Care Act. So no more this mandate that everybody has to be in a health plan with a network.

And it says at the bottom of this wording, it says, “Instead, these plans set specific benefit amounts for covered services and communicate those benefit amounts to enrollees who may then seek covered services from any provider.” We have asked the Trump administration to bring back real insurance, catastrophic coverage that pays a set amount, and then everybody knows what that set amount is and the prices are sort of set by doctors and hospitals because they know how much money you have in hand, but it gives you all the control. I think this is what the Trump administration is doing.

Sam Rohrer:

Well, we certainly hope so, and we can pray to that end. Ladies and gentlemen, stay with us. We’re going to break away for just a couple of minutes now, and then we’ll return. I’ll continue to talk with Twila Brase, and we’ll go into this issue of HIPAA and data sharing, and Oregon harvesting, believe it or not, it’s all kind of tied together. Well, if you’ve just tuned in the last few minutes, you’re listening to Stand in the Gap today. I’m Sam Rohr, and my special guest today is Twila Brace. She’s the president and the co-founder of Citizens Council for Health Freedom. They have their website at cchfreedom.org. A lot of information on that, including likely, I would assume, information about all of the things to one degree or another that we’ll be discussing even today. But Twila, let’s get into this matter of HIPAA and data sharing, because I built this into the title of the program.

It’s not the only thing we’re talking about, but it’s a major part. I did some research, and according to, I’m going to say, generally accessible data information, the federal government initiated what is known as the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement. That’s the full title name, and it’s created by the US Department of Health and Human Services in their office there of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Now that’s what they’re saying. Now, they say also it’s designed to establish a nationwide standardized system for secure health information exchange among healthcare providers, public health agencies, payers, and patients. That’s a big deal. And you put all that together. I know you’re going to have a lot to talk about it, but in my research, I queried as to whether patient data privacy, and that’s where we’re going, because most people think of HIPAA, that’s what they think, patient data privacy, whether or not that was the goal of this government initiative.

And this is what came back and said to me, “Privacy is not the primary goal, but a foundational requirement of participation.” Fairly vague, in my opinion. But Twila, when patient data transferability, meaning you collect it and you put it into place and you make it easily transferable in a broad sense, in that system saying themself that privacy is not the goal, but it’s an assumed responsibility of those who access the data, in my opinion, big red flag because there’s no way the data is private, but that being the case, what is the current issue with a lawsuit recently filed against this entity? Who’s involved and why?

Twila Brase:

So this entity, this common agreement, which they call TEFCA, and so really, yes, facilitating all the collection and exchange of data, and this is through an agreement and everybody signs these forms, right? And so here’s the thing that happened is that there are organizations who have all signed that form, healthcare organizations, who say that a clinical data platform who was allowed to be part of TEFCA. And so the federal government said Health Guerrilla is a clinical data platform and it’s qualified to be able to access everybody’s data under this common agreement, but now there’s been 40 entities that have complained to the US Department of Health and Human Services saying that … And then there’s been a lawsuit led by Epic, which is an electronic health record system, and their claim is that Health Guerrilla allowed two data companies the ability to access, use, and monetize the data in 300,000 medical records of patients.

So the lawsuit has been filed, the complaints are going into the US Department of Health and Human Services and saying, “Hey, you just can’t let anybody onto this platform. You got to make sure that they’re not on there for their own purposes.” Of course, Health Guerrilla is saying, “You got this all wrong, this isn’t what happened, we’re going to stand up and defend ourselves against this lawsuit, but ultimately you just have to understand that the federal government, by the HIPAA rule, by requiring electronic health records, by mandating that all health data be digitized, by mandating that it all be interoperable, by funding the eHealth Exchange and by creating TEFCA, all of that has made all of us vulnerable, has opened up our medical records. And when they say that privacy is not the goal, but it’s considered an assumed responsibility, they’re not talking about privacy because 2.2 million entities can have access to our data if those who have our data choose to share it.

They’re not talking about privacy, not like you and me would talk about privacy, like we get to control who sees it, right? They’re talking about security of the data as they transfer it hither and yon, that nobody can have access to the data other than who they decide within this 2.2 million entities can have access to the data. So they’re not talking privacy, they’re talking security while they share it.

Sam Rohrer:

All right. Obviously big problems raise lots of alerts, but let me just move right into this from that aspect of it. And that’s the HIPAA part because everybody listening, everybody signed it. We’ve talked about HIPAA before. They go in for something, you sign this paper, you think it’s private, you think the information that’s there, that all of that critical data that if it was well known and publicly known or known by the wrong people, they could use it adversely to the patient. I mean, all of those things, which we understand, but how does this relate then to HIPAA?

Twila Brase:

Do you mean TEPA?

Sam Rohrer:

Well, in other words, should people not be concerned about what you just described with TEFCA, this new platform, because HIPAA is sitting to the side guaranteeing that everything is private?

Twila Brase:

Oh, I see. Oh yeah. No, because HIPAA is considered in the industry. HIPAA is considered a permissive data sharing rule. HIPAA says that data only has to be shared. There’s only two required shares. Doctors and hospitals, et cetera, everyone you think should have your data. Those only have to share it with the federal government to verify that they’re complying with the HIPAA regulation. And then the other one is they only have to share it with the patient, but even that, there’s some exceptions to that rule. But it’s permissive that all of these entities who hold your data, about 702,000 of them, hospitals, clinics, healthcare facilities, nursing homes, labs, radiology facilities, you name it, all of them, they’re considered covered entities. That’s what they’re called because they’re covered under HIPAA. They have to follow the rule. All of them can share it amongst each other, and they can share it with the 1.5 million business associates that they can have contractual business arrangements with.

And so you should not think of HIPAA as protecting you. I regularly refuse to sign the HIPAA form. I actually now just bring my phone in with the HHS Notice of Privacy Practices website on my phone. I show it to them where it says in bullet one, it says, by law, you do not have to sign the form. And bullet five says that the provider, the doctor, the clinic has to sign that you refused. You don’t have to click a button, you don’t have to raise a pen, you don’t have to write the word refuse, no initials, nothing. And so, just regularly refusing to burst this entire impression that HIPAA protects privacy and to let all the people at the clinics and the hospitals understand that you know it doesn’t. And this is all a farce to get you to believe HIPAA protects privacy. So you will be calm as they share your information with all of these people and you have no idea what they’re doing with it or where it’s going.

Sam Rohrer:

Well, here you go. So we’ve talked about that before. It does not prohibit the passing along of information. Now you have this TEFCA we just are talking about, which actually puts everything. One of the things I read, one of the purposes was to remove from individual silos and to put on a common platform or it makes information even more available. But there’s another item that you’ve identified. It’s part of the Consolidated Appropriations Bill, HR 7148 signed into law this week that’s related to organ procurement organizations. What is this and how does it relate to sensitive patient health data and the privacy of things we’re talking about?

Twila Brase:

Yeah. So this appropriations bill had more than a thousand pages, but we found it towards the end. And the bill, which is now law signed by President Trump on February 3rd, the bill says it’s essentially three things that Congress is encouraging. They use the word encourage. We encourage you, the hospitals, the transplant centers, and the organ procurement organizations who facilitate the organ harvesting and donations. We encourage you to integrate your data systems. We encourage you to begin automated referrals of potential donors, which means that the hospital, some way, technically, the hospital systems will just automate the referrals to these OPOs, these organ procurement organizations, so that they will be just notified that there’s a prospective possible donor, somebody who’s dying, struggling to live. And then, and so there’ll be no family engagement in making that decision to tell the organ procurement organization about your loved one who’s struggling.

And then the third thing that they encourage is remote access, that the hospitals will give organ procurement organizations remote access to the electronic health records of the patient who’s struggling to live. So essentially, these OPOs are going to be able to watch and wait, and they’ll be able to look from afar, what’s happening in the exam room? Is the patient getting better? Is the patient getting worse? Should they start looking for something? Should they approach the family? But the HIPAA actually, one of the 12 national.

Sam Rohrer:

Twila, just hold that, because I want to continue this a little bit in the next segment. Almost sounds to me like hospitals are potentially incentivized to look as patients as targets rather than patients. Anyway, we’ll come back. Ladies and gentlemen, stay with me back in just a moment. Okay. Twila, before we move into this whole matter of the World Health Organization and some changes have been made, let’s stay on what we are talking about just a little bit because as I was saying, as you’re describing, the ability was called the appropriations bill, consolidate appropriations bill, organ procurement organization OPOs, seems to me into a position where they could view people who come into the hospital, not just as patients to help in every way to get better, but actually to look at them as potential targets for some type of organ that they could remove and give to somebody else.

And of course, we know there are people waiting for organ transplants, but we also know around the world, there’s a tremendous black market effort on organs and taking organs from people. China’s been doing that forcibly from innocent people. And Canada had somebody on the program sometime ago, Canadian hospitals, targeting people to actually move older people, patients, actually move them to the point of killing them, assisted suicide or killing them, but with the idea of taking their organs. It concerns me greatly that something like this would come out of the administration, be buried in an appropriations bill. But anyway, speak a little bit more about, is that something? Is the hospital, did you find, can the hospitals be rewarded financially for finding somebody who they think would be a good target for organ removal?

Twila Brase:

Well, the interesting thing about this is that, at least what we understand is that HIPAA allows all this to happen, so it already allows it to happen, but apparently hospitals, by the sounds of it, hospitals have been reticent to just let the OPOs in and just automate this recognition. And so that’s why I think the Congress says we encourage this integration, automation and remote access, because I believe it’s already legal under HIPAA, but that the hospitals aren’t doing it because the doctors and nurses feel like they should have conversations with the patient and the family, and then decide when they want to tell an organ procurement organization that something is happening. And so this is, I don’t know who actually, whose language this is, except I do know that Senator Grassley has a bill that looks very, very similar to this. So he probably just got that language into this bill.

And when it comes to the money, I believe we found that it’s a $3 billion revenue that can be earned through the whole organ donation procurement industry. And we do know that in the bill, there is now going to be a fee that gets paid. If you want to put somebody on the list, you have to actually pay a fee. And so we believe that what’s going to happen there is that the people who get on the list are probably charged more. In order to get them on the list, the hospital will charge them a fee, the insurance will pay for it, that sort of thing, but we’re not exactly sure, but there is now going to be a fee. I think for people who don’t really understand this issue and sort of trust it and they’ve just put donor on their driver’s license, they also need to know about the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, which has been passed by all 50 states.

We’re calling it the Utilitarian Anatomical Grab Act, because it’s got a provision that basically says, if something happens to you, you can’t speak. If you don’t have a person to protect you, there’s a list in the law that allows him to go to the next person down on the list and the next person, the next person, the next person, until you get to the coroner who could eventually give you the right to take the organs of that person if you don’t get hold of anybody else. And if you don’t have a piece of paper that says, “I refuse to be an organ donor,” and you have it on you and somebody finds it or a friend produces it in time before the incision is made, this is all part of this Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. And just coming out in the news yesterday, or maybe it was on Twitter about the fact that there have been discussions about whether or not and how should patients be anesthetized when the organs are taken, because Harvard changed what it means to be dead so that you can be a beating heart donor, still living, but considered dead so that the organs can be taken while the blood is still pumping through them.

So there’s a lot of things I think people don’t understand about this. And I recently heard that in some study, there was a bunch of nurses, all the nurses, they didn’t have that they would be an organ donor. And so this was just one study, I think. But so I think maybe people who watch what happens want less to be an organ donor because of things that might happen to them with all this kind of wishy washiness going on.

Sam Rohrer:

Well, I’ll tell you what, we don’t have time to go further on it, but I think maybe we ought to pick this up a little bit and perhaps in a future program because the logical question is, well then what should I do? I know some time ago I took myself off. I was an organ donor. I said, “I don’t want to do that anymore.” And when I just updated my will, we made some definite changes relative to end of life changes and powers of attorney for health and how we stated that because if things are not done properly, you can be bypassed, your family can be bypassed and somebody just like this can take advantage of you. So that’s a whole different discussion. We don’t have time to go further into that, but thank you so much for watching that. And let’s revisit this again in another program.

Twila, I’m sure that you’ll know more perhaps about what took place in this bill. But let’s just shift here just a little bit in the remaining time. World Health Organization, the US Department of Health and Human Services on an HSS release dated January 22nd, basically said that the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of State today announced the United States completion of its withdrawal from the World Health Organization due to the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states, and then all that sounds fairly good, but what’s it actually mean for US citizens and from your perspective, what is the actual complaint that they are making? Does it really make any difference or is it just theater?

Twila Brase:

No, it makes a big difference. And so the United States is a founding member 78 years ago in the 1940s in the last biennium, not the current one, but the United States paid over $1 billion in just two years. It’s 20% of the World Health Organization budget. And so the United States has indeed pulled out of it. You might be interested, no, because the World Health Organization is an organization of the United Nations that just in the news yesterday was the fact that the United States owes supposedly $4 billion for the UN operating budget and peacekeeping operations, and that Trump paid nothing to the UN in 2025. And so everybody’s waiting on bated breath to see how much of the four billion will or will not be paid. So when you think about what the complaints are against the World Health Organization, you mentioned some of them, but I think another way to look at it is that this is an organization we paid a lot of money to as taxpayers, but it endangered citizens.

It lied to the world about masking and about vaccines. Originally, it said that mass didn’t work and then over the course of not too long as COVID got started, it suddenly decided that they worked and they changed their entire verbiage. So it followed the narrative. It’s really in bed with China and it is run by a Marxist. And of course, there have been these health amendments that they have tried to get the United States and others to participate in, which would take away our sovereignty and let the World Health Organization impose global control with any kind of declared pandemic. So all of this is totally against American values, and so there’s a good reason that we pulled out.

Sam Rohrer:

Okay. I totally agree with that as well. I mean, the whole organization, unelected, having authority, but there is a troubling paragraph and you want to have time to have to carry it over just a little bit, but in the third paragraph of the same document, it says this, “The World Health Organization delayed declaring a global public health emergency and a pandemic during the early stages of COVID-19, costing the world critical weeks as the virus spread.” Now, to me, when I look at that, what they’re saying is that the real reason for the withdrawal is that they did not declare a world emergency and a pandemic earlier. They should have done it earlier, but then the president, when he was at Davos, because this was the same week that this happened, doubled down on what he was saying, glad that he declared an emergency here and that he brought to market the COVID shot and used the military, he said in that meant to do so.

So to me, I’m finding some contradictory statements woven through this document, almost like World Health Organization, you didn’t declare the pandemic early enough, we’re going to declare it earlier than you. To me, that’s how I interpret it. What are your comments?

Twila Brase:

Well, I think some of its posturing, some of it’s just making clear rationale for leaving. Some of it’s like maybe setting a bar for the future. I’m not exactly sure, but I think there’s some really important history that I should mention here because most people aren’t going to read it, but as I said, the United States was a founding member, but you do not understand that the World Health Organization in its documents has no provision for withdrawal from the World Health Organization. Zero. But before the United States agreed to enter, it got the one exception where it is allowed to leave the World Health Organization. So even back then in the 1940s, Americans said, “Nope, nope, nope. We need a way to get out of this. ” So we’re the first ever to pull out. They say we’re not withdrawn because we still owe-

Sam Rohrer:

And we’re out of time. Ladies and gentlemen, that is a great thing that we did. That’s the bottom line. It’s a great thing that we did. Stay with us. We’ll be back and conclude the discussion today in just a moment. Well, as we go into our final segment, Twila, before we go on, is there anything you wanted to say in conclusion of what we were just talking about? Because we didn’t do a lot of justice. We just hit in brief the withdrawal from the World Health Organization, which is obviously a good thing. Not even being a part of the United Nations would be a good thing. On the other hand, there’s an argument that can be made that when in fact the World Health Organization that once increasing global control does not have the United States at least represented, not paying the bills, but represented to say yay or nay, does it not give over pretty much unlimited control to China that’s actually been in there in a problem anyways.

So just a thought on that before we go into the final subject here.

Twila Brase:

Well, I had actually thought about that same thing, but then it’s like, we’re paying for an agency that we clearly can’t control because we certainly, all that money didn’t control it or it wasn’t talking our language. And of course Biden was in control there as well, and he could have cared less. And so to put all this money into an agency that’s not even going to protect your sovereignty, can you control it with money? Is there more control because you’re outside of it and you’re speaking your own thing, you have no contract with the World Health Organization, you just ignore them. I think it’s debatable, but should we really pay a Marxist organization? Hard to say. Will China get all that kind of control? I don’t know.

Sam Rohrer:

Yeah. Well, ladies and gentlemen, the only reason for asking while that question was, it comes down to this issue which we talk about a lot. Those in positions of government and policy making, they are going to do and make decisions that they make based on their worldview. We have a talk about a biblical world view here. That spot you just heard talking about justice, difference between justice and social justice. Okay. Biblically defined if we were a part and if those who were making decisions were in fact making decisions truly according to the Constitution, truly according to the definition of morality and justice as defined biblically, it would make a big difference. But when we don’t, well, then what difference does it make? And so you could have a pragmatic decision. Why fund a socialist organization, which they are, and spend our money? And that’s a practical decision and that’s good.

Yeah. Why give them money? We shouldn’t be giving them money. But it comes down to, again, the worldview by which we are making decisions, even the laws in our own country, our policies here, and we’ve already talked about some of those strange things coming out of even this administration. You have to have people who are thinking and interpreting morality and ethics and character and the constitution and the principles. You have to be thinking the same way, otherwise you will have issues. Now, we’ll just leave that at that. Twila, in your materials, you’ve also talked about something else called the Save America Act. Some concerns that you have about that. Can you define what Save America or the Save Act is all about and then your concerns?

Twila Brase:

Well, I’m trying to figure out exactly a position on it. And I just say that because for the federal government to essentially come in and say to the states, “You’ve got to have an ID in order to vote.” That’s one thing. Then there’s the fact that they’re trying to make sure everybody has a federal ID. Now the SAVE Act isn’t doing that. The Real ID Act is doing that because the real ID is a federal ID, a national ID under federal control. And there are states like California where a Republican wants you to have a federal ID as a requirement to vote. So you have this whole thing happening here with presumptions about the real ID, thinking that the real ID is just a state ID with a star and people don’t realize it has federal control. And the last thing you want is the federal government to be in control of elections and to be able to just strip someone of their identity through digital and biometric controls and certainly people in the state can’t vote if an ID is required.

So I think these things are like enmeshed in there, but the other thing is just the consternation amongst Republicans as to whether the SAVE Act is a good thing because of like Thune, majority leader, Senate majority leader Thune saying that we shouldn’t federalize elections and Mitch McConnell saying that this is a purview of the state. And then you’ve got the SAVE Act, which is conservative Chip Roy and Senator Mike Lee saying that we need the SAVE Act in order to protect the integrity of our elections. So I think there’s a lot of things going on here that I think everybody wants integrity of elections, but what does the Constitution say? So I’ve been looking at the Constitution and what constitutional organizations are saying about what the Feds can do to the state to require from the states. And it does seem like under the Constitution, there’s things that the federal government cannot interfere in or Congress cannot interfere in, but that the Congress can actually require certain things because apparently they were concerned that the states would just shut down the elections and stop everything.

And so they did put some power into the Constitution. So I think, from my perspective, I think there are things to be thought about here, but I’m also just really concerned about the fact that it says that a real ID can be used as one of the IDs to vote. And one, it’s a federal ID and two, the bill seems to think that the real ID proves citizenship, but in fact, it does not. And even the Homeland Security in a recent court case sent in a document to the court about this lawsuit and said that the real ID is insufficient proof of citizenship. That’s Homeland Security who’s trying to impose real ID, telling a court it’s insufficient proof of citizenship. And part of the reason it’s insufficient proof is because it can be given to citizens of other countries, foreign citizens. It can be given to a whole host of different kind of non-citizens, including those seeking asylum who have or have not been even approved for that.

So this whole thing, even of relying on the real ID and considering that to be an indication of citizenship is incorrect.

Sam Rohrer:

And herein, ladies and gentlemen, as we’ve talked about so long on this whole matter of real ID, I fought this, Twila and I when we first met, it was over this issue many, many years ago. So ladies and gentlemen, on this issue, I’m going to recommend a website, constitutional alliance.org, constitutionallliance.org. This fellow has been on this program before here with me, but it kind of gets into talking about the whole idea of authenticated birth certificates and all of that. Everybody wants to prove identity. Federal government wants to consolidate into one plan and identity. That’s a federal ID card. That’s a reason to oppose it. But you get into all of these different things. Congress says one thing, Homeland Security says something else. At the end of the day, neither one does what’s supposed to be done. Neither one considers what the Constitution actually says. Whenever you walk away from the law, you automatically create problems.

That’s where all of this sits. But constitutionallliance.org, you can find information on that. Twila, all these things we’ve talked about here today, are all these things, can people find these on your website?

Twila Brase:

Yes. And yeah, that’s cchreedom.org, CCH, freedom.org. And specific to real ID, they can go to our refuserealid.org website and they can learn about the $45 fee, or I would consider it a penalty if you don’t have real ID or acceptable ID to fly.

Sam Rohrer:

Yep. And that’s something that has recently been imposed last time you were with me. You brought that up and that’s very appropriate. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re out of time right now. Twila, as always, thank for being with me, covered a lot of areas. We could have gone so much more into depth, but ladies and gentlemen, we encourage you to listen to the program again, go further and check it further if you have further interest. Certainly to her website, Citizens Councilorhealthfreedom.org, CCHfreedom.org, constitutionalliance.org for that side of the equation, our website, standinthegapradio.com. Thanks again for being with us and the Lord willing, we’ll see you back here tomorrow on this program. Staying in the gap today.